In a recent decision of Giriyappa & Another v/s Kamalamma & Others, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioners, who were the original defendants in a property dispute. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which had upheld the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. This case revolves around the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection for their possession of the disputed property under this provision.
Background of the Case:
The dispute originated from Original Suit No.364/1988, filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) who sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession of a piece of land. The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that although the respondents may be the lawful owners of the property, they had executed a sale agreement with them in 1968, which entitled them to the possession of 2 gunta of land. The petitioners claimed that, based on the sale agreement, they had been in continuous possession of the land.
However, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found in favor of the respondents, dismissing the petitioners' claims. The petitioners subsequently filed a Second Appeal in the High Court of Karnataka, which also dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments. The High Court, in its judgment, addressed a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 53A of the TPA to the petitioners' case.
The Legal Question:
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides legal protection to a transferee in possession of property under a contract of transfer, even when the formalities of registration and completion of the transfer are not fully met. Specifically, they argued that, since they were in possession of the property in part-performance of the agreement of sale executed by the respondents, they should be protected from eviction.
The High Court, however, found that the petitioners failed to prove that the sale agreement had been executed by the plaintiffs or that they were put in possession of the property by virtue of such an agreement. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had established their ownership of the property and the defendants’ unauthorized occupation. Moreover, the High Court concluded that since the petitioners could not establish the validity of the sale agreement, the protections under Section 53A of the TPA were not applicable to them.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, upon hearing the SLP, upheld the High Court’s findings. The Court observed that there was no error in law committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitioners' appeal. It affirmed that for the protection under Section 53A to apply, the transferee must fulfill certain prerequisites, such as:
- There must be a written contract for the transfer of property that clearly outlines the terms of the transfer.
- The transferee must have taken possession of the property in part-performance of the contract.
- The transferee must demonstrate willingness to perform their part of the contract and must have undertaken some action in furtherance of the contract.
In this case, the petitioners failed to prove that they had a valid sale agreement with the plaintiffs and had taken possession based on the terms of that agreement. Consequently, the protection under Section 53A did not apply.
The Court also highlighted that Section 53A was designed to protect transferees who are in possession of property based on a contract, even if the formalities of the transfer (such as registration) are not completed. However, it pointed out that this provision must be strictly construed, and the absence of a valid contract or proof of part-performance undermines the applicability of this protection.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the SLP reinforces the importance of meeting the legal requirements for invoking the protections provided under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case also underscores the necessity of providing clear, credible evidence to support claims regarding property transactions, particularly when invoking legal defenses such as part-performance. The Court’s ruling ensures that the provision does not become a tool for those seeking to exploit contractual ambiguities or incomplete transfers.
Ultimately, the dismissal of the petition signifies that the transfer of immovable property must be supported by a valid, enforceable agreement, and mere possession without the proper legal basis cannot be used to claim rights under Section 53A.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
